Transgender health care rules

Remember how, whenever two sodomizers get “married,” we are asked why we should care about their private life?  “Why should you, oh Mr. Religious Conservative, care if Bob and Larry get married?  What’s it to you?”  Aside from the objectively nonsensical idea that members of the same sex can somehow be married (they can’t), remember that the marriage push is the tip of a much larger spear in the LGBT movement which is designed to force you, like it or not, to cooperate with their vice.

Case in point, President Obama has issued “rules” (we used to have laws) instructing the now-nationalized health care industry that they may no longer “discriminate” against “transgender people.”  This means, first of all, that your health insurer will have to start paying for care related to gender re-assignment.  They already pay for hormonal treatments, and while the new “rules” won’t force them to cover sex-reassignment surgery, you can be sure eventually they will.  What a disturbing world we live in that men are dosing themselves with female hormones and then going to a surgeon to have their manhood lopped off.  Actually, what a disturbing world that such self-trauma is covered by “insurance.”

Now keep in mind how insurance works.  If you are a healthy adult, you are paying into insurance that you are not actually using.  Your money goes into a pool that will help cover Christopher’s transition to Christine.  Congratulations, you are paying for this psychopathic mutilation.

The second part of the executive order states that health care facilities will no longer be allowed to bar gender-confused individuals from their “preferred” restroom.  So now, while your wife is using the hospital ladies’ room, she’s going to have to share it with poor old Chuck, a man in a dress who has a few issues with his, er, sexuality, and prefers the company of women whilst doing his business.  Good luck to you when you rush into the ladies’ room when you hear your wife scream, but at trial I recommend claiming your own gender-confusion.

Some schools (schools!) are dealing with this problem by creating gender-neutral restrooms.  This is a non-solution for two reasons:  first, builders create men’s rooms and women’s rooms because they can handle multiple men or women at a time.  It isn’t economical in most facilities to have a large number of single restrooms, and gender-neutral restrooms are that.  (Maybe we have men’s rooms, women’s rooms, and sex-pervert rooms?)  In the second place, the goal of the LGBT movement is to force you to participate in their destruction of objective reality.  It does them little good to have everyone off in their little cubicle when their real goal will be to force everyone into a single, large gender-indistinct room.

As I have said a number of times in the past, ultimately the philosophical absurdity of Nominalism is to blame for this, as well as its offshoot called Existentialism.  Nominalists don’t recognize the reality of essence, and so they think any class of things we recognize (e.g. men, women) are a class merely by name and not because they share any common essence.  This makes the individual the only truly real thing, and hence individual expression trumps any sort of group gender-identity.

This would be less harmful if it staying in the halls of what passes for academia these days, but the advocates of such views are not content with that.  And so, now you are paying for gender-benders to mutilate themselves and letting sex-perverts into your restrooms.

“Gender is a Spectrum”

We often hear the following:  “gender is a spectrum, not a binary.”  Like most solemn nonsense (thanks Papa Francesco!), this says both everything and nothing at the same time.  It says nothing in that it is a false statement.  Human beings are male or female.  All human beings are male or female.  All human beings in history have been male or female.

It says everything in that it states something obvious:  each and every individual member of a class (e.g., male or female) lives out his membership in that class in a way unique to him.  The way I live out my maleness is different from the way my brother lives out his, or my father, or any other male on the planet.  I happen to detest sports, interest in which is considered an indispensable element of maleness in most of America.  However, nobody, including myself, ever questioned whether I was male or not, and I have many other interests (technology, an appreciation for the opposite sex) which I hold in common with other men.

We can fault William of Ockham for the “gender as an infinite spectrum” problem.  Ockham was the founder of nominalism, and if you don’t know who he was, I recommend you pick up a copy of Ideas Have Consequences by Richard Weaver and read it cover to cover.  It helps to have a basic education in philosophy before you do this, but here is the gist:  nominalism denies the real existence of universals.  When we encounter a class of things, say, horses, we never directly encounter that class itself.  We only encounter individual members of the class (this or that particular horse.)  There is, however, an essence which exists in the objective order of reality, common to all horses.  For lack of a better term, we could call it horse-ness.  The nominalist denies that such a common essence exists in reality.  Instead, he sees “horse” as a mere label of convenience (Latin:  nomen) for grouping individuals, a label which has no actual presence in the objective order of things.  This is an easy mistake to make since we cannot directly perceive “horse-ness”, but there are many things that are real that we cannot directly perceive.

Only a nominalist could look at individual expressions of gender and decide that such individuality excludes any real, common essence among the members of that gender.  When the nominalist reaches this point, he doesn’t have far to go before he asserts that since there really is no essential nature to gender, we can be whatever gender we want.  However, the nominalist, with really remarkable hubris, manages to deny a patent, obvious reality which is right in front of our noses:  there are male people and female people.

It may be easier to understand his mistake if we look at the class called “human beings.”  Each human individual is clearly living out their own unique expression of what it is to be human.  Therefore, we can assume there really is no common essence amongst them.  Rather, “humanity” is a convenient appellation we can apply to these individuals based on their shared characteristics.  It is not a real essence, just a name.

But obviously there is a common humanity.  There is something real that makes each of these individuals human.  Just as there is something real that makes each of us male or female.

A final point.  Defining gender as a “spectrum” requires that you actually know what a spectrum is.  The Mexican woman who cleans our office probably doesn’t have any idea.  The funny thing is, even though she hasn’t had the “education” to know about the color spectrum, she is perfectly aware of what color is.  She can see yellow and red and blue just fine.  She also knows what a man and a woman are.  The militant left obviously has used the educational system for direct indoctrination, but they also use it to lay foundational concepts that can later be used to undermine clear perception of reality.  This is why they want universal education, even for those who could get by in life just fine with only a basic understanding of reading/writing and arithmetic.  They want  to create people with enough of an education to be manipulated into thinking men are women and women are men.  And who knows what else.